PSA: You're not doing science. You're trying to entertain people. Make it exist first.
Some GMs worldbuild for their own fun.And I can tell from experience that engaged players like it more when there's an internal logic in the setting.It's not a dichotomy, you just need to be aware how much prepared stuff is actually visible to the players and decide for yourself whether the other things bring you enough enjoyment to be worth it.
>>98935084this is generally correct but falls apart the moment any kind of magic is introduced
>>98935084The useless details are for my pleasure, not the players.
I like doing both, in the opposite order. Add the cool thing, then figure out how it could fit in.
>>98935100>engaged playersI care about that in movies and books, but not in games.When I'm playing a game, all I care about is having cool characters do cool things in fantasy combat against monsters and undead.
>>98935150This is the right way, but I'd actually expand on this and say the "cool thing" should be a historical event or cultural trend. For example, I wanted to make a setting built on the 7th century Eastern Mediterranean. This means I have to explain how there was a Roman Empire analogue that collapsed, and the successor state got into a horrific and pointless war with a Sassanid analogue. It means I have to explain why there's powerful, monotheistic religions and localized pagan faiths. That is enough foundation to make something wonderful, because then you start looking into, "what was Pre-Islamic Arabia like?" And "how did the Slavic migrations into the Balkans alter the region?" And then you can find ways to integrate it into the setting.
>>98935165Ok, then you're not the type of person I talked about. You do you.
>>98935084I'm sorry but if someone doesn't do the math on agricultural acreage needed for a sizeable biofuel production facility, how will the four Imperial German engineer PCs be able to fly Zeppelin L4 back to their home world from Hobbiton?
Reposting this all-timer
>>98935084you dont know that im not doing science, and i find that art has the most meaning when it informs us about reality.
>>98935084Bit of a roundabout way to remake the magic isn't science bait innit? Real answer is pic related and has been solved for some time by anyone vaguely reasonable.
>>98935277>magic isn't science baitHow is that bait? It's true.Magic can never be a scientific field in any world, because a world's science is its natural and physical studies, whereas magic has to be outside of that world's natural order (superior or otherwise), or else it's just a force, power, or source misclassified as magic. If a world studies magic, it would be an entirely different form of systematic study; if it could even be properly studied.
>>98935277>Bit of a roundabout way to remake the magic isn't science bait innitAre you still cut up about that? It's been literal weeks.I know because I looked at that melty while trying to find my actual proper autumn jacket.
>>98935277Sandersontards have been getting way too uppity lately.
>>98935430>>98935469>>98935474lmao you guys are hopeless.
>>98935494Don't lump me in with those spergs.
>>98935084Some people are trying to entertain scientists, and that's okay too. Not everything is for everybody.
>>98935511We're all part of the one big spergy lump, sorry about the mess.
>Newsflash, the genre's called fantasy! It's supposed to be unrealistic, you myopic manatee!
Bro is rattled lmao
